Constitutional reform seems to be this year’s watchword for nearly all parties going into the elections. Exactly what it means in practice, however, is not at all clear, except perhaps in the case of ANUG which has set forth a more detailed proposal for shared governance. Others too have echoed their commitment to the latter concept, although exactly how they would structure it is not known.
Given the fact that expressions about the need for constitutional reform have been circulating around the society for some time, and that these have been coming not just from new parties but also non-political actors, the two big players in the election arena have clearly decided to take the matter on board. The problem is that no one really knows how serious they are, and what it would involve should either of them return to government.
In his New Year address to the nation President David Granger had said that “… constitutional reform will allow for the easier resolution of political differences.” At the launch of his party’s campaign in D’Urban Park, however, he told his supporters, “We are going to reform the constitution so that the nonsense they tried with us over the last 12 months does not happen again.” This was a reference to the opposition no-confidence vote of December 2018, which the government had challenged in the courts, but which the Caribbean Court of Justice had found valid. Are we to infer from this that for the coalition constitutional reform is restricted to limiting or abolishing the no-confidence vote mechanism for removing a government?
The problem for President Granger is that his record in respect of constitutional reform is very poor. Between 2011 and 2015 he was Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform which had been set up after 2001. During that period it met very few times and effectively accomplished nothing. The coalition manifesto for the last election placed great emphasis on the matter, but in office, Mr Granger took the issue out of the hands of the parliamentary committee and gave it to the Prime Minister. Mr Nagamootoo then asked Mr Nigel Hughes to produce a report, and after that, he invited a UN team in to give advice. It had all the hallmarks of temporising.
When a Bill did reach the parliamentary committee, it remained mired there, suggesting that the PPP/C members were no more enthusiastic about constitutional reform than was the government. For his part the Prime Minister blamed the opposition for the lack of progress, because reforms would have required a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly in order to pass. However, at no point did he attempt to introduce these to the floor of the House to test whether in fact the PPP/C would have passed any of them. If nothing else, it would have presented the opposition with a dilemma.
But there is something else too: President Granger has shown no appetite for being hemmed in by the Constitution as it stands, never mind a reformed version which potentially could restrict presidential powers even further. He has given sometimes quite bizarre readings of constitutional provisions, and has used these as a basis for acting in contravention of the law, as in the case of his unilateral appointment of Gecom Chair James Patterson. In short, he appears to favour a more autocratic style, and has displayed a certain impatience with consultations with the opposition when the Constitution requires it. Exactly how he envisages constitutional reform allowing for the “easier resolution of political differences” were he to be president again, is therefore a matter for conjecture.
On the other side the PPP/C has no great record either where reaching out to representatives who do not belong to their base is concerned. Mr Bharrat Jagdeo as president had no less a taste for a kind of constitutional autocracy than Mr Granger has had, and no greater a predisposition for restricting his own powers in that office. Even after the reforms of 2001, the presidency is still a powerful post, and both major parties have supplied ample evidence that they would prefer to keep it that way.
But genuflecting to the mood of the times, Mr Jagdeo and PPP/C presidential candidate Mr Irfaan Ali are also talking about constitutional reform, although not so long ago they did not seem to regard it as a matter of great import. The General Secretary told party supporters at the campaign launch in Kitty that the intention was to change “the electoral system to see how we can be more inclusive, even explore power-sharing. We have spoken about management of Gecom, how do we change our Constitution to serve our people?”
While incorporating the buzzword du jour, ‘power-sharing’, it would seem from the way Mr Jagdeo phrased the issue, that the party had not thought out what they might be prepared to entertain in this regard. As such, it opens the possibility that this is just empty words rather than reflecting a real resolve.
As for Mr Ali, he homed in on the implication in the President’s statements that the coalition government might do away with the no-confidence vote provision in the Constitution. “As your president,” he told his Kitty audience, “no confidence is not nonsense that must be cured by constitutional reform. It is an important check and balance mechanism in a true democracy.”
There is a double irony here. In 2014 the combined opposition wanted to bring a no-confidence vote in Parliament, which they would have won because they held the majority.
Then President Donald Ramotar prorogued Parliament in order to avoid this, and only called an election after coming under great pressure both locally and internationally. One suspects that in 2015, Mr Granger would not have been amenable to removing the no-confidence option from the Constitution. But now the boot is on the other foot, and it is the PPP/C which has used it successfully and is defending it, while the President is presumably opposed to it. It all seems to suggest that our two big parties are agents of political convenience rather than principle, something which will not come as much of a surprise to many people.
Both the large parties presumably will have calculated that they need votes from the putative ‘third force’ in order to secure an overall majority in Parliament, which may be why the PPP/C has suddenly discovered the virtues of constitutional reform. In the case of APNU+AFC, as mentioned earlier, this was a major element in their 2015 manifesto, and the issue had always been central to the AFC’s concerns. They would have to explain therefore why it is that the matter has not been pursued while they have been in government if they want the electorate to believe that they are sincere. Certainly President Granger’s words have done nothing to help them in this regard, although as already said, the Prime Minister has tried to go to the rescue by somewhat unconvincingly blaming it on the opposition.
In the end the campaign looks as if it is developing according to the traditional routine, with the leaders in full attack mode in front of their respective bases. This is what appeals to the crowds at these big gatherings, with Mr Jagdeo performing that service for the PPP/C in Kitty. As it was he received a more enthusiastic reception than anyone else, including Mr Ali, who had more to say about substantive issues, but did not manage to fire up supporters. At least where the parties’ constituencies are concerned, manifestos and electoral promises don’t matter too much; that is not why they vote for them. Whether that will be good enough to satisfy ‘floating’ voters – assuming these exist in sufficient numbers − and entice them to put their ‘X’ against one of the two parties in the absence of believable commitments will only be discovered after March 2.
